LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:07:05 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
From: Dan Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:11:53 +0000

Stevan:  A correction: as the press release and our editorial policy
make clear, we carry out a full peer review. We also have over 100
registered referees.

Dan Scott

On 14 Dec 2012, at 01:11, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:23:13 -0500
>
> Here is the kind of "membership" deal Nottingham has just signed:
>
> "All you can publish" for a year, from a no-track-record journal with
> Mr William Martin Modrow and Mr Dan Scott as its editors and a team of
> web-recruited volunteers.
>
> For years I and others had been repeating: "The purpose of OA is to
> free peer-reviewed research from access-tolls, not to free research
> from peer review."
>
> Finch's folly looks like it's instead steering (some) UK institutions
> toward the latter.
>
> Lay back, consider social science research, and think of England...
>
> Stevan Harnad

ATOM RSS1 RSS2